Edexcel A2 History - Cold War

Thing is with all this....lots of people use things like that as reasons why they weren't committed. But in my opinion that ignores what the Soviets thought peaceful coexistence was. It wasn't meant to end the Cold War, it just meant they didn't have to turn it into a hot war. Therefore by this definition, the fact that they avoided the nuclear option in Berlin shows enough commitment. Peaceful coexistence of anything was designed to entrench the Cold War, and so things like the Berlin Wall actually are part of peaceful coexistence. So personally I think you're right.

How badly will we be penalised for this though? Do you think the wording of the question was bad as it could have meant the confrontation 'in the 1960s', as there was certainly no confrontation in the 50s BUT there was alliance - and arguably very little alliance in the 60s anyway? Thanks

I think as long as you used the appropriate skills and had sustained analysis throughout, you are most likely going to get a B despite mentioning dates outside of the question. One time I did an essay on the first controversy and it was an A grade answer, the only thing that limited it was using dates outside of the question therefore reduing my grade to a B. So the most that it will do is give you one grade below. But don't worry about it too much.

But I don't think the question required you to talk about the dates in the question as it asked you 'why' it was 'confrontation in the 1960s' so I would guess you talk about before the 1960s?

For Peaceful Coexistence i put the following:
-Korean armistice 1953
-Austrian State Treaty 1955
-Finland (porkkala) 1956
-'Geneva Spirit' - (Geneva conference, Geneva summit etc) although these summits weren't substantial, it was a huge deal that the superpowers were meeting each other and it showed recognition of their spheres of influence.

-Paris Summit 1960 got cancelled due to the wake of the U-2 incident. Showing that the USSR wasn't as committed.
-Vienna Summit 1961 showed an improvement of relations and the fact that the US did not retaliate in terms of nuclear weapons showed that they were more 'seriously' committed than the USSR.
-Hungarian Uprising 1956 - Again, the USA just issued statements of condemnation rather than intervening showing that they were more committed.
-Berlin Crisis 1958-62

I left out the Cuban Missile Crisis and probably so much more. Pretty sure i didn't ace this question. I also did the end of the cold war, what else did you write for it? : ) My controversy question was pretty unorganized and all over the place!

For PC question I overall argued they weren't fully committed to the policy, however, I mentioned they were in terms of attending Summits/ 'Geneva Spirit' and the signing of the Austrian State Treaty - showing willingness to make negotiations with the West etc. However, mainly argued they weren't as ongoing arms/space race induced fear/suspicion, failures of Summits, hardline approach (U-2 incident/Paris Summit). For the end I argued people power important but argument failed to consider the role of Gorbachev in allowing them and ensuring protests didn't turn to violence - also role of Reagan rhetoric/reaganomics in putting increasing pressure on USSR, as well as Gorbachev reforms/ pursuing genuine relations with west, however economic superiority of US and stagnant economy of USSR was my key factor as it was what Reagan advanced on and what Gorbachev reacted to.

How badly will we be penalised for this though? Do you think the wording of the question was bad as it could have meant the confrontation 'in the 1960s', as there was certainly no confrontation in the 50s BUT there was alliance - and arguably very little alliance in the 60s anyway? Thanks